Episode 1825 Scott Adams: I Give You An Optimistic View Of The News Because Somebody Needs To

La ta da da da. Good morning, everybody, and welcome to the best experience of the day, best experience of the month, the year, indeed. Your very life. Since the history of the universe, there's never been a finer moment than this. And tomorrow's looking good too. If you'd like to take today up to a level heretofore unheard of, all you need is a cup or a mug or a glass, a tank or chalice or stein, a canteen, jug or flask, a A vessel of any kind. Fill it with your favorite liquid. I like coffee. And join me now for the unparalleled pleasure. It's the dopamine of the day. It's the thing that makes everything better, from California to Pennsylvania. It's called the simultaneous sip. Go. Oh divine. Well, it would appear that maybe my notes did all print out, but. Huh, that's interesting. Looks like my notes didn't fully print, but that doesn't matter because I have a backup. So Marvel has a new movie out. Have you heard the trend toward making movies more woke? Has anybody mentioned to you that that might be a trend? And do you ever think to yourself, I think I'll know when this trend has gone too far. You'd be able to spot it when it happens, right? Like, you always think it's going too far, but when the trend really goes too far, you all know it. Well, Marvel is advertising their new movie. I swear to God, I'm not making this up. Honest to God, this is real. Marvel's new movie is called she Hulk, about a woman who's a lawyer. She's not just a stay home mom, she's a lawyer. And she gets a little of the Hulk's blood in her and she turns into a she Hulk. Now is it over? Are we done? Is there anything that could be more ridiculous than she Hulk? And here's the funny thing. I'll probably watch it. I'll probably watch it for like half an hour. And the advertisement show, it's like they're talking about how it's such an innovative breakout concept. And I thought to myself, what is innovative and, you know, special about exactly what every, every movie is doing? All they're doing is taking the male characters and turning them into female. But when you turn the Hulk into the she Hulk, am I alone in thinking that maybe you've hit the limit of how much wokeness you can cram into one civilization feels like? Somebody says it's not a new character now. I don't care if it's not a new character. It's a new movie. Right. So the fact that it was a character that existed that I'd never heard of doesn't really change the story. There's not much to say about it, just that there's going to be a she hulk. So you know that companies are getting this thing called an ESG score to show how woke they are. I guess what is the E is environment, S is for social justice and the G is for some kind of good governance or something. Something like that. Basically it's a catch all for wokeness. And I guess corporations are getting a score. You know, Tesla is somewhere in the middle, they're not quite woke enough, etc. But I was wondering if that's complete enough. It doesn't seem complete. I feel like what you need is not just a woke, an ESG wokeness score, but for investors purposes, don't you need a crippled by wokeness score? So I was suggesting that, yeah, you know, for environmental purposes and, and for social purposes you might want to know their ESG score. But suppose you were just a cold hearted investor, wouldn't you want to know which companies to avoid? You'd want to know which companies to avoid. Right. So I suggested that there should be also a crippled by wokeness score. Then I noticed that Senator Tom Cotton had responded to my tweet saying that my idea for a crippled by wokeness score would basically be the same thing as the ESG score is now. So that's a little redundant. To which I thought, huh, all right, you want me to really fuck things up? What kind of companies should you invest in? The companies with the highest ESG scores or the lowest go? If you were as an investor, do you want the lowest ESG score meaning the least woke or the most woke? I'm going to argue worst investment, the medium. Medium would be worst. Here's why. The only way you could be the most woke is if you're the most rich. You would have to be super successful to be so woke that you thought you could afford it. Right? So at the highest, highest wokeness, you're probably also going to find the company that's producing the most cash. Not always. I mean we're talking about generalities here, right? If you're going to invest in stocks, don't invest in specific companies, you know, do baskets of companies. But I would speculate that the companies that have the highest ESG scores are the ones that think they can afford the luxury because it's a luxury expense. So I would say that the most profitable ones would have it but then also the least profitable ones, the ones that are just tying their own shoelaces together. So I don't know, you could play this a couple of different ways. I'm not sure I have a firm opinion which way that would go. But wouldn't you love to know. Wouldn't you love to see an index fund of low ESG companies? Come on. You could get rid of the ESG thing. If you just put together an index fund of the lower ones and find out how they do compared to the higher ones, it's over. I think the trouble is that you might find that effect. I just mentioned that the more profitable you are, the more excess you can afford. So you might find actually that the most profitable companies have the best ESG scores, but not because of it. It would be because they could afford it. All right, how about UFOs? So Tucker in his. In his other show, he's got a. I think a streaming show. I forget what it's called, but he interviewed Dr. Gary Nolan. I guess the show is just called Tucker Carlson, the streaming version. And Dr. Gary Dolan is a serious credentialed scientist. He's got some Stanford credentials, so he's like a serious, serious scientist. And he was saying that they're doing actual studies because there's evidence that people who have had any kind of contact with a UFO are likely to have brain damage. People, they have abnormal brains. So people who have had close contact, including in one case, allegedly touching one on the ground. That's right. If you didn't know about this, there's a famous case of somebody who walked right up and touched it. Have you seen the pictures? Oh. Oh, yeah. There weren't any pictures, but at least you could get it confirmed by the other eyewitnesses. Oh, I don't think there were any other eyewitnesses, but that's totally something that happened. So I ask you this. Dr. Gary Nolan is not. Does not. I don't think he asserts a belief in alien encounters. So we're not talking about that. So when we talk about UFOs, we really mean just unidentified. So to be fair to Dr. Nolan, he's not telling us the answer. He's saying there's a mystery here. He's trying to figure it out. He's got some machine that, in fact has. Has determined that the brains of people, or at least their blood, has some kind of abnormality, I think, and that the people who. Who claim to have contact with UFOs have different brains. Now, how do you explain this? Could it be that people who see UFOs come in contact with something that warps their brains? That's one possibility that's being considered. The other possibility is that the way that you see a UFO is to having an abnormal brain in the first place. Who is it who sees things that are not in existence? What kind of brain sees things that are not there? Well, Joe Biden would be one kind, but generally speaking, it would be brains that are abnormal. So if you knew that people who have abnormal brains are associated with people who claim they saw possible alien spaceships, wouldn't you sort of think maybe, maybe cause and effect got reversed there a little bit? A little bit. Or is it possible that these anecdotal reports do not form a randomized controlled trial, the gold standard of science? Here's what I think it is. I think if a lot of people report that they saw UFOs, some number of them will also have abnormal brains. And it just looks to me like anecdotal stuff to me. Confirmation bias, anecdote, accident. I don't see anything there, frankly. Well, what do you think are the states that people most want to go live in? Rasmussen did a little poll and found out where people would most likely live if they're already in the United States. You would not be surprised. Florida is number one. Has Florida done a great job of marketing itself or what? Whatever you want to say about Florida, let's say you're a Democrat and you say Desantis, Desantis. All those mistakes you're making. But the one thing you can't deny is if you do a survey and there are more people who want to move into Desantis estate than out, he must be doing something right. More people want to go there than don't. I mean, at least it's the number one state they want to go to. 18% of Americans would rather live in Florida if they could move. But 11%, this is number two on the list, would move to California. So the two places, the number one and two places that people would like to move to the best place in the country and the shittiest place makes sense. I'd like to move to the best place and the shittiest place. Well, it might have to do with the fact that people have different preferences and different information and all that. Frankly, I don't think I can move. I could live in Florida all year round. I could definitely visit in the right season, but there's no way I could live in Florida year round. I don't know how anybody does that. But living in California, where I live anyway, year round, very easy. Very easy. I live in one of the very few places you can have one home and all year long you can say, I'm pretty glad I live here. It's very rare. Hawaii is another place like that. How in the world is Hawaii not on the list? Hawaii has, I think, the happiest people, but it didn't make the top three. But here's the funny part. The fourth on the list, New York is number three. Fourth on the list is Pennsylvania. How did little scrappy Pennsylvania get on the list? Number four. What exactly is it about Pennsylvania that sold it above Wyoming and Maryland? And what exactly? Old trains? Well, my speculation is there's something in Pennsylvania very valuable. The Liberty Bell. Maybe it's the Liberty Belt, or maybe not. Well, in Kansas, apparently there was a big turnout on the vote. I guess it was a few days ago. In which Kansans can. What's the name for people who live in Kansas? The Kanzanians. Right. Kansas, Kans. Indians. The. The kins and Indians voted overwhelmingly, I guess decisively. I'll say not overwhelmingly. I'll say decisively to keep abortion rights in their constitution. Now, my understanding is that there's already movement to pay people to get abortions out of state. And I guess Biden is going to sign an executive order to allow Medicare to cover you no matter what state you get your treatment in, so you can go to another state and still be covered. I feel like that's the big adjustment that's going to happen. I feel like that's the big adjustment. How many states do you think will be banning abortions? When it's all said and done and the states get to work through their individual decisions, what do you think? How many states do you think will ban? You think 25? I think the number is going to be smaller than you think. That's what I think. I think whatever you estimate, it might be half of that. And the reason is it's kind of hard to be a competitive state. Imagine if you were in a family and you knew there was exactly only one person who might ever get pregnant in your whole family. Let's say there's only one female. Your daughter, your sister, or something like that. There's just one female in your whole family who could even get pregnant because they're the right age and right gender. If that one person was at risk of maybe moving out of your state and you didn't really have an opinion about abortion one way or another. I feel like Maybe you would get a lot of people who are not in the fight wanting their relatives not to have to move. So I've got a feeling that, I've got a feeling that few states will ban abortions completely. So that's my prediction. Now, I'm not saying that's what I want because I don't get into the question of what should be the law about abortion. As I've told you too many times, I would rather recuse myself unless something changes and I can start having babies. The moment I can have a baby, you're going to hear my opinion like you've, you've never imagined. But until I can, I'd rather, you know, defer to people who have more, more skin in the game. All right, here's the permanent news. Ukrainians are still holding strong against Russian forces. How many of you thought that the Russians would have already started pushing the Ukrainians back and that Russia was going to take a little more time to do it, but they would just chew away on Ukraine until there was nothing left? How many thought that was going to happen? Remember, my prediction was that Ukraine would stall Russia and Russia would regret it. It's somewhere in the middle because it looks like Russia got a whole bunch of really good strategic stuff. They'll probably be able to hold it. So I can't say that I was completely right, but I was directionally, interestingly close to right because Ukraine is resisting way better than people thought. So I think I was on the tiny, tiny group of people who predicted Ukraine would do better than people expected. And that was based on technology, you know, military technology. What is funnier than Joe Biden claiming credit for the lowered gas prices? Let me ask you, you all watch the news, you're well educated consumers of news. Can you tell me in the comments if your news sources have informed you about one of the most important stories happening, the price of gas. What is the reason? The price of gas has been going down fairly significantly and for a while now. I get that it's still way higher than it needs to be. That's a separate conversation. But the trend is lower. Tell me in the comments, because you all read the news why that's happening and I'm not going to read your messages yet. Look how many people say they don't now, but most people are saying low demand. Some people are saying because Biden released the emergency reserves, less driving because the gas. Yeah, it looks like the reason is lower demand. So Joe Biden managed to get the gas prices so high that people didn't want to buy as much. So the price came down a little bit. Hey, you locals people, what are you doing over there? All right, so somehow this has turned into a Dilbert comic. Let me describe this as a Dilber comic. All right, here's what's literally happening. Biden did something and something's in quote. So he did something about the problem. That's all you have to do. This is pure Dilbert comic strip, pointy haired boss strategy. You do something, anything, you reorganize, you change the name of something, you say your focus is different, and then you wait. You wait for something that was going to happen on its own. Oh, looks like things are going in the right direction now. It's a good thing I reorganized, changed the department names, changed my focus. Right. And then you take credit. So the number one thing that I make fun of in the Dilber comic, maybe if you could say there's one thing, it's managers doing random things and then trying to sell it as the reason that something that was basically luck or chance or was going to happen anyway happened. Am I right? If you read the comic, that's probably one of my biggest themes is management taking credit for things that were going to happen on their own. And here's Biden. He does the pointy hair boss moves and it works. It works on Democrats because apparently they don't understand anything about business or economics or anything. Apparently. I mean, it looks that way. So he does this emergency petroleum reserve thing. And what do all the experts say about the emergency oil reserve? They all say the same thing. They all say, well, yeah, that could make a little bit of difference, but it also costs you your entire emergency oil reserve. It's like that's a little bit of difference. So Biden cleverly, he's making this work, by the way. So if it sounds like a criticism, I'm not sure it is. In a political context, it's kind of clever. He did something that makes no difference at all or tiny difference. He just waits until demand itself is going to go down after the summer. At the very least, demand was going to go down after the summer. So if you do the petroleum reserves at the right time, you can claim that the natural reduction in demand after the summer was actually because your strategic petroleum reserve lowering the cost. What would Desantis do? He would look for all sources of energy. All right, so Biden actually pulled a pointy haired boss move and got away with it. He's totally pulling it off. All right, did all of you see the video of Alex Jones on the witness stand for his Sandy Hook trial. You really have to watch that. I don't think I've ever seen a Perry Mason trial moment. You know, the Perry Mason is like a very old lawyer TV show where he was always doing a gotcha. I gotcha on the witness stand. But here's what it looks like, what happened. I have a little skepticism that the way it's being described is what is what really happened. I think we're going to find out that what we think happened isn't exactly what happened. But here's what is alleged to have happened. It looked like Alex Jones was on the stand. He was answering for his Sandy Hook so called conspiracy theories which he's admitted were not true. At this point he actually said he thought he had some kind of form of psychosis that caused him to believe the conspiracy theory. So even Alex Jones is saying that the thing he said was true, which was that the Sandy Hook thing was fake and it was actors, was not true. And that he says there was something wrong with his mind, that he thought it was true. And that's a pretty strong defense. It's kind of a strong defense that you thought it was true. And who exactly is going to look at Alex Jones's entire body of work and say that it's definitely not true that he had some kind of psychosis? Do you think a jury could look at him and say, yeah, we're going to totally rule out some kind of psychosis because it looks like it could be right. And part of what makes him so damn interesting is you don't know what's going to happen. And he looks crazy, but he looks crazy in a way that you're not quite sure. Maybe he's crazy smart. Maybe the crazy people are right. So if I were a juror and you gave this defense, my defense is assuming there was no other evidence. There will be other evidence. But if the only thing you heard was your defense is that he had a form of psychosis, I would look at his videos and go, yeah, maybe. Can't rule it out. So anyway, here's the story. Allegedly the plaintiff's lawyer, if I'm using the right term there. So the lawyer on the other side has Alex Jones on the jury stand and then tells Alex for the first time, and this is the amazing part of the story, Alex Jones is hearing this for the first time, that Alex Jones's lawyer accidentally gave the entire contents of Alex Jones's phone to the other side without making them agree to. I don't not use parts of it or whatever. So I guess because of a legal technicality, on top of what might have been just a lawyer mistake, maybe with the technology, maybe with something else, that the lawyer had the entire contents of Alex Jones text messages on the topic of Sandy Hook and was telling Alex Jones that the things Alex Jones was testifying to would be perjury according to what they've seen on the text messages. Now here is my question, right? Without telling Alex Jones, because apparently it was a mistake. Apparently it was a mistake to give that information, but once it was given, the other side can see it because it was given to them without an agreed upon restriction. If I'm getting the legal parts right now, Alex Jones seemed to be surprised that that happened and maybe a little worried. Wouldn't you imagine the entire contents of your phone being available to somebody who wants you dead? Basically, you know, the Sandy Hook people who were prosecuted, the people were suing him. You know, I'm exaggerating a little bit, but they probably want that guy dead. I mean, they just probably hate him with a hate that I can't even imagine. And they have all the contents of his phone, or at least the lawyer does. Now here's the question. The, the judge allowed this conversation to happen where the, the attorney was making accusations as opposed to asking questions of Alex Jones. I believe they're allowed to ask questions, but they're not supposed to be introducing a lot of evidence, right? Should, should a lawyer be introducing brand new evidence while the accused is on the stand? That feels like the opposite of the trial. Now, my understanding is that there might be an exception for perjury. The perjury might be the one time you could say, ha ha, but I know you're lying because of X. Is that true? So, I mean, I don't know exactly what the, what the legal, you know, guardrails are, what you can and cannot do. But let me tell you, just as a citizen, so just as a citizen watching this, the moment I found out that the attorney on the other side, through an accident, a mistake, had all of this information and now could use it any way they wanted, I would have thrown out the case. If I had been the judge, I would have said, okay, whatever this is is not justice. It's, maybe it was a, an honest accident. But you can't have the trial now. You can't have an honest trial now that this has happened. The rules that keep us all safe are still intact. But there's something, you know, a weird situation that caused them to be Violated in a conceptual way, maybe not a technical way. And not only that, but I think it would have jailed both the attorneys. If I were the judge, I would have put the prose, you know, the plaintiff and the defense attorneys. I would put them both in jail until I figured out what the fuck went on. Am I wrong? I would have stopped the trial at that moment. Say, wait, wait, wait. Are you. Are you honestly saying. Is the allegation that I'm just learning right now in live trial. Are you seriously telling me that you have the entire contents of the defendant's phone and that they did not intend to give it to you and that you intend to use it because of a technicality? Is that what I'm hearing? And then suppose they said, yes, that's exactly what you're hearing. I would have put both of them in jail. Now, I wouldn't keep them there, but I'd say, whatever you've done is so bad, there's got to be some fucking crime to this. You guys go work it out. Maybe half a day in jail or something. But somehow I think the attorneys need to be in jail, like actually behind bars, even if it's just for an hour. Like, just one hour. But I feel like there's like a. There's some kind of principle or point that has to be protected here. Right? So I don't know. Does anybody know enough about. Yeah, I haven't heard what Dershowitz said. I'm not sure. I'm not sure that's exactly his. His domain. Well, I guess it would be because it's constitutional. Maybe the rules the same for a civil trial. That's what I don't know. Yeah, so that's exactly the kind of thing. I don't know. Civil trial versus criminal trial. If it's perjury, is that an exception? But don't you have check Robert Barnes Twitter feed? Yeah, I will check that. Robert Barnes would be an excellent follow for you, by the way. If you're not following Robert Barnes, you should. I can't remember the last time I saw a tweet from him. I'm definitely being. That's weird. I have to go. I can't think of the last time I saw a tweet from Robert Barnes. I'm sure I've been following him forever. What's up with that? All right, so here's what I'd like to add to this Alex Jones situation. So, Alex Jones is being sued, and generally speaking, without getting into the full details, he's being accused of making up a Story that isn't true about the Sandy Hook thing being fake, when it was actually a horrible tragedy. And that by saying it was fake to so many people in such a public way, it caused the parents of the Sandy Hook thing to have just horrible problems, which I can imagine. They're pretty horrible. They had death threats, they needed all kinds of stuff. So they're suing him. But here's my problem. What exactly is the difference between what Alex Jones did? Making up a story that hurt specific people, that's what he's being accused of, and what Joe Biden did to win the presidency? Joe Biden promoted the Fine People hoax and it won him the presidency. The fine people hoax identify as a set of people and. And demonizes them. And he used that to get elected. Now, not only did he use the Fine people hoax, he used the Russia collusion hoax to demonize people. Made up story. And the insurrection hoax, another made up story, to demonize people. The President of the United States is doing exactly the same crime. If it's a crime or it's an offense. Not a crime, but I guess it would be an offense. What would it. What's it called? If it's a. If it's a civil trial, it's not a crime. It's a. It's a what? A tort. I don't know any of my legal stuff. It's a civil action. I don't know whatever it is. But tell me I'm wrong, Tell me I'm wrong. I say Joe Biden has committed exactly the same offense, you know, different topics, but it's the same offense at least three times. At least three times in public. At least three times. Now, I'm not talking about when Biden goes after Trump. When Biden goes after Trump alone. That's politics. That's not illegal. Right? Even if he lies? Not illegal. But if Biden starts dragging in Trump's supporters, which is exactly what he does, right? Not conceptually, not a little bit, not slightly. Exactly what he does. He brings the base into the conversations very directly. Right. I'm not inferring he does it directly in specific words. How's that not what Alex Jones is doing, being accused of? Seriously, Is there even one person who disagrees with my representation of this? If you're lying to demonize a group of specific Americans. Specific Americans, that's pretty bad. Is it true or false that Joe Biden has said that everybody who attended the Fine People situation, the Charlottesville thing, has he not said that all of them are racist, white Supremacist. He has, yes. Are there not. Do we not have. Well, I have proof. I've personally interviewed people who attended who racist. But they disavowed the racists. But they thought just as a matter of principle or history or whatever, they would prefer keeping the statutes. Now, don't you think that every one of those people who is definitely not a racist but has a different opinion about how to represent history, don't you think they have a case against Joe Biden? Probably not. Because he's political. Right. I don't believe you can sue the president. Can you give me a fact check on that? I don't believe you can sue the president for the same thing that Alex Jones is being accused of, but it's the same crime. And Opala Jones did. Did she or did they make that Bill Clinton got sued, but that was criminal. Is that different? Yeah, maybe you could, huh? So is it the Department of Justice that usually doesn't want to prosecute a sitting president unless they really, really have to? Yeah, I guess. I don't know the standard there. So ignore everything I said as usual. As usual. Well, if you heard that there had been some kind of an election in Arizona, what would be the county in Arizona you'd be most concerned had a rapid and very credible count of the vote, what would be the county you'd most be concerned about before it even happened? Yep, a little place called Maricopa. An election did happen, allegedly in Arizona. And what do you think is the county that's having the most trouble counting the votes? And it's taken a while. Maricopa. Maricopa. Can somebody give me a fact check? Is it true that France stopped using electronic counting machines and mail in ballots because there's no way to secure them? I saw that on the Internet. But is that actually true? I don't know. I think. I'm not sure I quite believe that. It's a little. The trouble is it's a little too on the nose. You know what I mean? It sounds a little too perfect. I keep seeing it on the Internet, but I'm not so sure. So France uses hand ballots in person only. That's what people are telling me. I would say I'd need a fact check on that. But if they did it because they couldn't figure out any way to secure mail in ballots and electronic voting machines, well, maybe there's something we have to learn from the French about freedom. Hello. Have the French ever inspired Americans on the subject of freedom? They have, thank you very much. French Revolution And Lafayette. We are there, but maybe. Maybe they're leading us again. France, we will. Don't you think France and the United States have such a weird and cool history? It's probably the coolest history between two countries. So France and the United States are two countries that are like siblings who don't get along until one of the siblings is challenged by a bully. It's like, yeah, screw you. Screw you. We do it this way, you do it that way. Until one of us gets threatened by a bully and then the other one's there. Boom. It's kind of. It's probably the. I think America and France are joined by some kind of joint soul. Feels like because of history. Great Britain I'm not so sure about. Obviously, we have a special relationship with Great Britain that's very real, but I'm not so sure they're always on our side, if you know what I mean. The Russia collusion hoax would be the top of my list of things which make me say, huh? I'm not so sure they're always on our side. Anyway, so this Maricopa county thing is interesting. Kerry Lake, who's the charismatic Republican candidate. This is a primary, not the full election, if you didn't know. Looks like she's going to win the primary. But. But here's the weird thing that happened. You know how Republicans always expect that the vote will go one way until the middle of the night, and then something sketchy happens in the middle of the night and everything changes and you wake up in the morning and your team lost? Well, Kerry Lake went into the evening, I think, behind, and then there was that sketchy thing that happens overnight. And then she was ahead, which is the opposite of how that's supposed to work. Except how is it supposed to work if it's a Republican running against a Republican? Is the accusation that Republicans are rigging elections against other Republicans? I'm a little confused about what people are accusing Maricopa of at the moment. I understand the past accusations, but at the moment, is somebody really saying that somebody is going to make that? Maybe the Democrats or. Who's in charge of Maricopa's elections, Democrats or Republicans? Is Maricopa Democrats or Republicans? It's got to be Democrats, right? Or we wouldn't be talking about it. It's a Democrat city. Okay, so if the Democrats are in charge of the Maricopa with. The Democrats have a strong preference of making Carrie Lake lose because they think she's the stronger candidate. See, here's the problem. As soon as you get into the second level of the conspiracy, the odds of it being true start to drop. If you told me one level conspiracy, it's my belief that some election or other got rigged. That's a simple, straightforward proposition. Maybe. Maybe it did, maybe it didn't. But as soon as you tell me, I think it got rigged, and it got rigged to make the weaker candidate win. Because then in the next election, now you've got that second level. Not impossible, because we've seen that they did that with Trump. Right. There's credible reporting. I would say, that Democrats thought Trump would be the easier candidate to beat. So maybe they think that about Kerry Lake, and maybe it was some kind of conspiracy in the middle of the night. But it doesn't feel like Democrats would rig a Republican governor primary. It feels a little too clever. If you told me that the news was favoring one candidate over another because they wanted you to, you know, pick the wrong one, I'd say, okay, that sounds like something would happen. But rigging an election, taking the chance of rigging an election simply to get the preferred candidate a little bit weaker one. I don't buy it. Yeah, I don't buy it. I don't think you take the chance when you know that Republicans all pretty much get the same amount of votes in Arizona. I'm not entirely sure that Kerry Lake would have done that much better than anything with a Republican name on it. I feel every Republican is going to get about the same number of votes when the actual election comes. So I don't feel that they would have taken the chance to rig that. When everybody is looking at Maricopa. I mean, Maricopa knows they were going to get looked at. Right? They know all eyes were on them. I just don't buy it. Anyway, that's one thing, one hypothesis that's out there. But listen to how the Daily Beast tries to put air cover down. So here's what the Daily Beast said today in an article, and they quote Mike Lindell about the results, and then they're going to say that he has obvious dissonance. Obvious dissonance. So I'm going to give you the quote. I want you to find out. Find the obvious dissonance. Now, what that means is that Mike Lindell is saying two things are true that can't both be true. So that's the accusation. So I'm going to tell you what he said, and you tell me if the Daily Beast correctly characterizes that as two things that can't both be true. Here's what Mike Lindell said, quote, about Carrie Lake, she won. What are you talking about? Of course there was election fraud, he told the Daily Beast. She won in spite of the algorithm, he added, attempting to reason, obvious dissonance between the two ideas. Quote, so much corruption in Arizona. Now, where is the dissonance? I believe this is a very clear statement of opinion. Again, it's opinion. This is not my opinion. Mike Lindell's opinion is that there was some corruption, but not enough to stop the candidate because she was a strong candidate. Where in the world is the dissonance? That's just a straight description of a thing that could happen? Now, I'm not saying it happened. I don't have evidence of that. But how in the world does the Daily Beast get away with describing that as obvious dissonance? It's not only not dissonance, it's definitely not obvious to me as obvious. It's not. You know, I think we've gotten to the point at which they used to just sort of tell you fake news stories, and if you didn't do your own research, which hardly ever works, you couldn't tell the difference. But now they're putting the fake news in the sentence that debunks its own fake news. They are so bold about lying to you that they can put the debunk to their own lie in their own paragraph. Because right here, in your very own eyes, you can read that Mike Lindell said two things that make obvious sense together, and then they said these two things don't make sense together. Right? I mean, that's what happened. He said two things that make perfect sense together, and then the writer said in the same paragraph, well, there's an obvious dissonance where. And they get away with it, of course. All right, I told you I'm writing a book on reframes, and I saw one here that I thought I could improve on. It goes like this. This is a tweet from Bowtie Bull, who wrote this, and it's advice. The key to not getting mad about mistakes people make is simple. Assume they actually tried their best. Now you just feel bad for them, like a disabled cat or dog. Okay, what do you think of that as a reframe? Instead of getting mad at people for their mistakes, just sort of pity them because they're not capable. They did their best. Okay. All right, here's my version of a reframe. I said, I don't get angry at others for their mistakes because it's a ridiculous standard and it would lead to self hatred if I start judging you for your mistakes, what the hell am I going to think of myself? Do you ever think of that? What am I going to use one standard for you and a different standard for myself? How am I going to pull that off in my brain? I mean, I'd like to be a little bit consistent. If I decide that you suck because you made an actual just mistake, what am I going to think about myself? I make mistakes every day, all the time. All the time I'm making mistakes and correcting and adjusting. So I would say that getting mad at people for mistakes as opposed to intentional evil. If somebody does something intentionally evil to you, oh, get mad. Don't let that one go. If somebody intentionally does something to you, I would recommend getting extra mad. Not even like ordinary mad. Under those conditions, get as mad as you want. You should push back as hard as you want on those. But if it's an honest mistake, the kind you see every day, I would say here's the way to judge people. Instead of their mistakes, judge them by how they fix their mistakes, how they respond to it. Do they apologize? Do they clarify? Do they try to make it better? Do they tell you what they're going to do next time to make it not a problem? Because that's the standard I would want you to judge me. If you judge me by my screw ups, I'm not going to be too happy about that because I have screw ups. Can you imagine talking an hour a day live about recently breaking events and not getting a lot of mistakes in there? Like fact check, wrong. Legal opinions, technology, wrong. How many mistakes have you seen me make? My God, I mean, I can't even count the number of mistakes I've made in a live stream, right? So if I were to judge myself by this standard, I'd have to, you know, go end myself or something because it would just be horrible. But instead I use the same standard for myself, which is when you correct me and I see, oh, looks like, looks like I was wrong. I try to tell you because this isn't the show about me being right. There are shows like that. There are shows about I'm right and you know, you're learning from me, but I'm more about this is a collaborative intelligence. Oh, you know, actually let's use that phrase. I believe that what we're all engaged in exactly at this moment is a collaborative intelligence. That's a pretty good phrase for it, do you think? A collaborative intelligence. I put, I put ideas out. You judge them in real time, you ab test them. For me in real time. And then I adjust. Not always, but I try to. All right, so that's my reframe. And I've got a book coming with a whole bunch more of them. By the way, do you see the, the power in these reframes? I don't know if I've completely made my case, but when I started putting them all together, I think I'm going to have a list of somewhere between probably 75 and 100 when I'm done of reframes that individually could change your life. Like any one of them and I'm going to have a hundred of them. I think most people will find five of them at a minimum, five that will just completely change their effectiveness in life or at least their attitude about life. Somebody says I'm too old and dumb to get anything out of your reframes. I take that as a challenge. I'm going to make a statement that I think is fairly extreme but that I can easily back it up. This is what I believe, that 100% of the people who read the book I'm writing, when it's done, 100% of them will find a substantial benefit from at least one of the dozens and dozens of reframe ideas because they're too powerful not to work. A lot of the reframes work just because you read them. You don't have to do anything. The beauty of a reframe is that you don't have to do the work. Have you ever seen a self help book where it starts out with, all right, number one, buy yourself a diary and write in your diary every day something or other, you know, what you ate or what you're thinking and what you're doing. Now, I'm not going to say that wouldn't work. The problem is you won't do. Doesn't matter how good the suggestion is if you're not going to do it. You know, I make the same argument with exercise. Do you know what is the best kind of exercise for you? Let me ask you if you know this, what's the best form of exercise? Go in the comments. Number one, best form of exercise, go. Somebody says swimming, somebody says walking. Yeah, I'll give you the answer. The answer is the one you're willing to do. That's it. The best exercise is the one you're willing to do. Because that's the problem. Whenever you talk about the best exercise, you're making me think past the sale. You haven't made the sale. Don't tell me the best kind of exercise. If you haven't convinced me to exercise, the sale hasn't happened yet. So I say the best exercise is the one you're willing to do. Because what happens if you do exercise on a regular basis? Doesn't matter what it is. Walking. Let's say you walk every day for exercise because that's what you're willing to do, but you're not willing to walk very far. You're only willing to walk, I don't know, half a mile. That's all you can do. It's all you're willing to do, but you do it every day because you like it. What happens if you walk half a mile every day for a year? Sooner or later, almost guaranteed, you're going to say to yourself, you know, I feel so good today. I do this half hour every day. This half mile is so easy. I'll just add another half mile and it'll be easy. And then the next time you go out, it's like, you know, half a mile seems so little now. Like, when I did that mile, that felt kind of good. Next thing you know, you'll meet some other people and you'll talk about, what do you do? And they'll say, I'm playing this new game called pickleball, sort of sweeping the nation. I don't know if you. If you noticed, but pickleball is a big sport that's happening now. And the friends will say, hey, let's do some pickleball. You say, sure, I'll try that once. And then you like it. And then you add that because you like it. So the number one thing you got to do is find something you're willing to do, learning how to do it right and learning better ways to diversify and get things right. That will happen just by hanging around with people who know how to do it. Do you know how I know how to use the weight machine in the gym? By hanging around in the gym and looking at people. Oh, reading the little sign and trying something and seeing if I liked it. Basically just trial and error and hanging out. Simply being around people who exercise will. Will just rub off on you. You just learn a bunch of things, right? For example, I didn't always know that it's a good idea to have protein immediately after weight training, but somewhere I heard it. I don't know, I picked it up somewhere along the line. I read it, I watched it, Somebody mentioned it. I don't know, but now I do it. So my point is, if you start with what's my. What's my ideal form of exercise. You can't get there. It's like everything else. If you want to go from, you know, one point to another point, it's not always the best idea to imagine it in its fullness, because if you do, it's kind of discouraging. It's sort of like pregnancy, you know, they say. I don't. I can't verify this, but they say that if you're a woman, you have a baby, and you have sort of a productive amnesia about how bad it was so that you're willing to do it again. Right. So don't think about that, like the whole thing. Think about the part you can do and what. The part you can do is put on your athletic shoes and walk around the block. And if that's all you can do, but you can do it every day, that's it. You're on your way. All right. So I'm pretty sure that you will see tremendous benefit in the reframes ahout. All right. You have any other questions? Any other stories I missed? Yeah, how do we eat an elephant? When is book expected out? I don't know. Maybe in the spring. Spring of next year. I'm hoping to be done by the end of the year, but it takes a while to. For it to come out. Somebody was late today on the locals. On the locals program. Somebody just joined us. If you don't mind, I'd like to start over. No, not really. All right. I hope you've noticed. Have you noticed that I have intentionally tried to make the tone of this live stream more positive and less. Less angry and yelling. And the reason I'm doing that is because I think there's more of a. An untapped hunger for that. I do not believe there's an untapped hunger for objective news that shows both sides. I don't think there's any hunger for that, but there's definitely a hunger for something that just doesn't sound suck. And so I'm trying to do that to the. To the degree possible. So I'm probably going to take the f bombs down a little bit because I. I tend to put them in my angry tirades. Now, I should tell you, and I want to be completely transparent about this. The angry tirades are all real. Like I'm not acting, but I do get, you know, I get caught up in the moment because it's a shared experience. So I think you give me some energy that I wouldn't have if I'm just sitting in a room by myself. So the rants are real in the sense that I'm feeling it as it's happening, but I also feel that I could control it more than I do. Somebody says, no, this is the best parts. But I'll also make you this promise. If I feel it, it's probably going to happen anyway. Right? I'm just not going to throw it in as a normal baseline expectation that I'm going to be dropping angry stuff in there. So I'm going to try to show you the best of what's coming. And by the way, look at the news today and you tell me that we're not entering the golden age. Are you ready? I mean, let's just go over. This was the news today, right? If you're not in Ukraine, which is a shit show, this was the news for you in America. Let's say, who's taking credit for the fact that oil prices are moving in the right direction? That's a nothing story. That's a story about something going right. I mean, not as right as it needs to be, but it's going right. The Alex Jones thing is really about one person in a ridiculous situation. It's not really about you at all. You know that. I made some points comparing them. That's not really news. Maricopa. I don't know. I think Maricopa is maybe helping us more than is hurting us, honestly. Because the more Maricopa situations there are, the more energy we're going to put on making sure we don't have another Maricopa situation. How many Maricopa's in a row? I just felt myself having to stifle an F word. Should I. Should I stifle it or should I let it go a little bit? Little bit. Well, I'm going to give you a small. A small F bomb. How many times does Maricopa have to fuck up before we get serious about election security and transparency? How many times? So this would be twice in a row, but two fairly important times. Now suppose the general election rolls around and Maricopa becomes a problem a third time. Is that worse for you or better? See, sometimes we can't tell the difference between good news and bad news. This Maricopa situation is closer to good news than bad news, I would contend. Now that's part of my new theme of giving you the positive side of things. Here's why. If we keep looking at Maricopa and we keep arguing about whether there was a real election there, somebody somewhere is going to have to fix the fucking elections. The More we say that they're rigged. I don't care if it's true or false. The more the country says I don't believe the elections because they're not transparent and it's not a type of election that I would have confidence in. I don't have any problem with you complaining about Maricopa until you're blue in the face. I think that's all productive. And I think that one of the things that Americans do well, I can't really speak for other countries because I'm not exactly the world traveler I should be, but am I wrong that one of the things that Americans do best is complain? Is it sort of like baked into our national character in some weird way? We're the most complaining group of people ever. We even complain about our complaining. If you look at the wokeness conversation, that's literally complaints about complaining. We're two levels of complaints. We're complaining about the complainers, literally. But I don't think it's an accident that we do so well as a country. I hope we can maintain our position of some kind of leadership. We've done pretty well. Somebody says Germans are better at criticizing themselves. Well, I would argue that that ability to criticize each other and yourself just endlessly is really a superpower because it's the criticisms that attract the solutions, right? It's the flame that attracts the moths. And if you're not complaining, you're not moving forward. So complain away, complain away. You know, that's why I'm softer on wokeness than most of you. Most of you are sort of absolutists about take your wokeness away. Not me, because wokeness is basically a complaint that things aren't the way somebody wants them. And I say, don't stop complaining if it bothers you. I do want to know. So if somebody's got some wokeness related complaint, you know, generally, and they would like me to know about it, I'd actually like to hear it if it's real. I mean, if it's just made up, I don't want to hear it. I don't want to hear it as a technique. I don't want to hear it as a mechanism to gain power. But if it's real, you know, like a real citizen telling me a real complaint about something that's not woken off, I'll totally listen to that. I am completely open to your complaints. Complaints are like, you know, when I hear complaints, it's just like, Cha Ching, do you know the best way to make money in a Startup, find something that's broken that everybody hates and then build a solution. Complaints are like free money. You just have to see them that way. In the short run, they're just problems. But in the long run, a complaint is a gigantic market opportunity. If you could build an election system that would make everybody happy, my God, you could sell some of that stuff, couldn't you? That's something you could sell. Do you want me to build a election system that works for you every time with no question whatsoever? Build me an app that I vote. And the app is recording me actually voting. So it's actually showing my face and showing me typing into my phone and then showing the results, like on the screen at the same time. Maybe it's a screen. Yeah. Actually it would just have to be a screen capture and that the only place that this would be captured. Yeah. Maybe it's got my fingerprints, maybe it's got my facial recognition, but it's a screen capture that shows my face, you know, looking into my phone or device. So the phone is looking at me when I'm looking at it. So it's recording me. And then on top of my face is the vote questions, and I'm typing in my answers. And then when I'm done, I have a complete video record of me personally voting and what I picked up and also the data from it. So the data goes in, and then anytime I want to, I can use my same app to query my data. It goes into the system and it gets my information back and it sees if it matches how I voted. Now, you can still break that because I don't know if I'm getting the real information back or some kind of spoofed version, but I think you could audit that. It's something that could be audited, so it's not as if you can't fix it. So somebody has an enormous market opportunity to just build an app that's foolproof. You don't think that could be done? I think you can. I think that somebody clever can make a voting system that just can't be hacked, and then somebody will do it. So complaints are money. There's your reframe. Complaints are money. It's one of the most useful things you'll ever hear in your life. Complaints are money. It just has to be, you know, transferred into a spendable form. That. But that's what your. That's what your startup does. There's no such thing as can't be hacked. That's correct. There's no such thing as can't be hacked, but there might be such a thing as you can't be hacked without getting caught. That might be a thing because audits are a thing. So as long as there is a good enough audit, there's no hack that could change the result. Absolutes are never true, but you know what I mean. Sunlight is the best disinfectant, unless you are Trump, in which case that's called drinking bleach, and it's totally, totally a bad idea. All right. All you need is a receipt. All you need is a receipt. I don't know. How would you know that the receipt matches what actually was recorded in the data? And how would you know that there were extra people? I guess that would be the problem, right? You could be sure that you voted, but you couldn't be sure that someone who isn't real didn't also vote. So I guess my, my, my suggestion has a big hole in it, but I do believe that it can be done. You know, I always hear blockchain being recommended, but I feel as if blockchain might not be the answer because it hasn't picked up the kind of, let's say, credibility and energy one would think it would. You would think that 100% of technical people would be saying blockchain if it really was obvious that that worked. I feel like there's enough disagreement in the technical world about blockchain being gamed that the smartest of the smart people are not saying it. Here's my feeling, but this is just. This is just a feeling. It feels like people were smart enough to know what blockchain is believe it could solve the voting problem. But the people who are smart enough to create a blockchain don't give me a fact check on that. I'll say it again. The people who are smart enough to describe a blockchain think it would work. The people who are smart enough to create a blockchain don't. Don't have that same confidence. Check that. See if that's true. All right. Paper ballots. We all like paper ballots. I'm seeing some confirmations, but I don't know if you could trust any of us yet. The smartest blockchain developers say you should use paper, right? Somebody says, now, I hate myself. I'm sorry, Robert. I know I just did that to a whole bunch of you because I was in that camp. You've heard me say, can you use blockchain? As if I knew enough to actually answer that question. But the lack of the people who actually are smart enough to be a developer for Blockchain. The fact that they're not telling me to use it, that means something. I'm not going to ignore that. All right. Well, I think this is the best show that's ever been on. I think we have set the standard for conversations in the United States from California to Pennsylvania. And I'm going to drop one little tidbit that I'm not going to say on YouTube. I'm going to save that for the locals crowd after I sign off on YouTube. But that's what they pay for. They get the special behind the scenes stuff. In fact, I'm going to ask their advice on a dicey situation I'm trying to figure out. So YouTube, thanks for joining. And Spotify, too. I'll talk to you tomorrow.